Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison delayed in assessing him for offending behaviour programmes. He also said he had been moved unfairly from tenth to 43rd on the waiting list and that prisoners with later parole qualifying dates (PQD) than him had been able to access these programmes.

The prison confirmed that they select prisoners for assessment based on their PQD. This is the date when a prisoner becomes eligible for consideration for early release. In Mr C's case, our investigation confirmed he had been listed for assessment based on his PQD and there had not been a delay in assessing him. In addition, we were also satisfied with the prison's explanation as to why Mr C had moved from tenth to 43rd on the waiting list. In particular, the prison explained that the waiting list was not 'fixed' and prisoners would be added to the waiting list in accordance with their PQD. In some circumstances, prisoners with a later PQD may be assessed before prisoners with earlier PQDs. The prison explained that, when that happens, a management decision has been taken to include the prisoner with the later PQD in the programme; for example where a prisoner is causing discipline problems and it is identified that a programme may help their stability or rehabilitation. We accepted these explanations as reasonable.

Mr C also complained about how the prison handled his complaint. He said there was an unreasonable delay in doing so, and that a member of staff failed to get back to him. The prison are allowed a maximum of 20 days to investigate and respond to a complaint, and we found that it took them 16 days to deal with Mr C's complaint. We explored the issue about the member of staff failing to get back to Mr C about his complaint, but were unable to determine whether or not this had happened.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, was unhappy when he was downgraded from open prison conditions and returned to a closed prison. He complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had failed to follow the correct process in relation to the downgrade.

We looked into the complaint but we did not agree with Mr C. It is for prisons to decide whether to downgrade prisoners. What we had to look at was whether the prison had followed the proper processes and procedures in making their decision. In this case, while we concluded that it would have been helpful if more specific information had been provided to the prisoner, we did not find evidence that the prison had unreasonably failed to follow the correct process.

Summary
Ms C complained on behalf of her brother-in-law (Mr A) about Historic Scotland’s rescheduling process for a town wall and bastion. Ms C said Historic Scotland failed to provide Mr A with clear information on the rescheduling process. This caused him confusion and uncertainty and resulted in him not submitting relevant information to them. Ms C said that Historic Scotland’s letters to Mr A failed to convey the importance of the issue; failed to state that Mr A’s property was affected by the process; and failed to suggest that Mr A should consider seeking legal advice.

During our investigation we considered the relevant legislation and noted that there was no legal requirement for Historic Scotland to consult with owners prior to rescheduling an existing monument. Any consultation that they chose to carry out was entirely voluntary. Historic Scotland’s procedures required them to notify the owner or occupier of their intention to propose a site for rescheduling and providing full details of the proposal.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaints. We found that Historic Scotland wrote to Mr A three times about the rescheduling review. We considered that their letters made it clear that this was a matter that was important and might affect him. They also sent him maps showing his property and asked them to contact them if he was not the owner. We found that there was no requirement for them to advise owners to consider seeking legal advice. In addition, in each letter Historic Scotland invited Mr A to contact them if he had any questions, which he did not take the opportunity to do. If he had been in any way uncertain about the implications of the letters then we considered it would have been reasonable for him to have contacted Historic Scotland.

Summary
Mr C and his wife own several properties. He said that they had voluntarily registered them with all the appropriate local authorities when legislation to register private landlords was first introduced. While fully intending to re-register with the council, they failed to do so, and were charged a late application fee. The guidance says that a late application fee can only be applied after two requests for an application have been issued. Mr C was unhappy that the council relied on two email reminders, which he said were not received. He believed the late fee charge should be cancelled.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that local authorities may interpret the legislation and implement the Private Landlord Registration scheme as they see fit. There is no requirement on them to remind landlords to re-register. The scheme is run as an online system and requires landlords to provide an email address when they register. In this instance, the council chose to communicate with landlords using the email address that they provided when they registered. This is a discretionary decision that the council were entitled to make, and we found no evidence of anything going wrong in this process. In relation to Mr C's assertion that the emails were sent to the wrong address, we found that they were sent to the addresses he and his wife had provided.

Summary
Mrs C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for an extension to a neighbouring property. In particular, she said that the council had failed to take into account her concerns about loss of privacy and traffic implications.

During our investigation we found that the council had in fact taken into account Mrs C's concerns. We were also satisfied that they had followed the relevant process and acted appropriately.

Summary
The owners of three properties located next to another property with a large rear garden complained about a planning application. The properties are in a conservation area but are not listed as of historical or architectural interest. An application for planning consent was made to build a single house on a plot in the large rear garden.

The complainants objected, saying that this would dominate their rear garden area and have consequences for daylight, sunlight and privacy. The application, which was subsequently amended in the light of comments from council planning officers, attracted a large number of objections and other representations, including a representation from a local councillor (made in a private capacity). When the amended application was placed before the relevant committee, they decided to hold a hearing of parties and a site visit. The hearing was addressed by two of the complainants, and by other interested parties, and the application was given conditional approval.

The complainants alleged that the council did not take adequate steps to notify the councillor about the hearing and failed to ensure that the committee that determined the application was provided with adequate plans on the proposed development.

We did not uphold these complaints. We found that the councillor's name was missed from the list of objectors because of an oversight, but the evidence also suggested that the council took adequate steps to let him know about the hearing through the normal correspondence system for councillors. The complainants also said that a site location plan attached to the report to the committee did not show their rear garden arrangements. The council said that the site plan submitted by the applicants agents was based on the Ordnance Survey map of the area and was sufficient to validate the application and establish the proximity of neighbouring properties. The plan attached to the report was purely designed to draw members' attention to the location, and was not required to show ownership boundaries in neighbouring properties. We took the view that the matter of the map provided was not one for which the council was responsible, noting that the committee was in any case able to view the site before coming to their decision.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council had considered a planning application for student accommodation as a 'local' development rather than the 'major' development that he considered would be more appropriate. He took this view because planning legislation says that developments of over 50 dwellings should automatically be considered as major. The council's view was that although the development consisted of around 100 bedrooms, as they were not self contained, they could not be considered as separate dwellings or flats.

We reviewed the legislation and government guidance and took advice from one of our planning advisers. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint as we took the view that the council were correct in saying that the individual rooms could not be considered as self contained. The development was, in effect, one of around 15 units each containing a kitchen, four or five bedrooms and a living area.

Summary
Mr C had a long history of owing the council money in respect of community charge and council tax.

His complaint had a number of aspects. These included disputes about whether the council should have pursued Mr C for council tax, and about what he was liable to pay. Other allegations included that he was not given the right to challenge the council's decisions and that the council did not follow proper procedures in arresting his earnings, issued incorrect instructions to sheriff officers and delayed in responding to correspondence.

We did not uphold any of these complaints as we found no evidence that anything had gone wrong in the processes concerned. We also noted that while it was unfortunate that a sum that had been arrested by the council remained frozen in Mr C's bank account for nearly six years, this was a matter for the Trustee in Bankruptcy, not the council, to pursue. We found that the council had told Mr C that he had a right of appeal to the Valuation Appeals Committee in respect of his dispute about liability for council tax.

Summary
Mrs C was unhappy that the housing association did not make tenants keep their bins in the designated area at the side of a block of flats and instead allowed them to keep them at the entrance. She said that there was often litter strewn over the path and road and it was unsightly, smelly and offensive. We initially found that her complaint had come to us too early, as she had not completed the housing association’s full complaints process.

When Mrs C brought her complaint back to us having completed the complaints process she raised a number of issues about this, and about how the association had handled her complaint. We did not uphold her complaints as there was no evidence of service failure or maladministration. Mrs C simply disagreed with the housing association's decision.

Summary
Ms C complained that her medical practice had kept information from her about her hospital test results. She also said that when she wrote a formal letter of complaint to the practice they had failed to address the issues she raised.

Our investigation found, however, that the practice had correctly reported the outcome of the hospital tests to Ms C and that their response letter to the complaint was appropriate.